On 29 Jun 2001, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> On 29 Jun 2001 05:35:54 -0700, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Arjun Ray wrote:
>>>
[Re Dr. Goldfarb on "External Subset Considered Harmful" for XML.]
>>> [...] This message is not publicly available because the W3C
>>> continues to keep the XML-SIG archive under wraps in the Members
>>> Area of lists.w3.org.)
>>>
>> And presumably because Dr. Goldfarb hasn't thought it important
>> enough to republish it in a public context (?).
>
> I'm not sure that's allowed.
It probably isn't. There were "confidentiality rules" that "invited
experts" had to agree to in order to be included on the w3c-xml-sig
list. We were given a URI to consult, but offhand I can't recall what
it was.
> Leaks of XML-SIG discussion seem to generate a good deal of
> complaining about leaks.
The XML-SIG list has been defunct for nearly three years now. By now
the only reason left to keep it from public view would be to spare
some people embarassment.
For those concerned about this new TAG thingy, let it be noted that it
is well within W3C "Process rules" to keep discussions of fundamental
technology confidential. Consider this explanation of why the xml-sig
was taken in-house to begin with:
[From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000Jan/0240.html]
: The situation was: other working groups that the XML WG was going to
: start collaborating with were W3C member-confidential. So there
: was a choice between smooth(-er) collaboration between the XML WG
: and those other WGs on the one hand, and easy access to the public
: to the XML WG proceedings on the other. The choice we (Jon, I,
: et. al.) made was to facilitate collaboration with other W3C working
: groups at the expense of public access.
I wonder if there's a statute of limitations for these things?
Arjun